Gender, yet again.

[vitci'i]

Let us take as the premise of the discussion that we are creating a new
selbri that will express gender. Perhaps it's a new gismu; perhaps we're
changing {cinse}. I currently favor making a type-4 fu'ivla {ceinse}.
This detail is largely irrelevant, however. Assume it can and may be
done: what exactly shall be done?

The most important places of a selbri are the x1 and x2, for different
reasons. x1 is the most accessible to LE; in my opinion the most useful
gender-related noun is the gender question. x1 is a gender.

x2 is the most accessible in the face of SE. The ideal selbri should be
constructed in such a way that if you want exactly two of its places,
almost always one of them is x2. I believe that x2 should be that which
is gendered.

So far we have: x1 is a/the gender of x2.

As I'm sure you're all aware, Gender is Really Complicated. In practice,
that probably means that it should be treated as fundamentally
subjective. Therefore, x3 should be the one who
judges/classifies/assigns a gender. For gender identity, this will be
the same as x2 -- the gender is self-assigned.


Gender is multifaceted. x4 is the aspect in which x2 is gendered, or the
action by which x3 assigns a gender or expresses a gender judgment. x4
answers the question "in what sense"?

Sex and gender, while certainly not identical, also cannot be entirely
disentangled, and our understanding of the distinction and relationship
may evolve over time. There may be more than two members in the set that
includes them. Therefore, I believe that we should not enshrine the
distinction by giving them separate selbri; rather, sex is a particular
x4. When a biologist identifies the sex of an animal, we could say
{ceinse lo danlu lo skepre le xadni}, or (context willing) {lo skepre te
ceinse lo danlu}.

Note that x4 is not an action by which a gender determination is
reached; it would be incorrect to say {ceinse lo danlu lo skepre lo nu
catlu lo plibu}, unless the scientist is in the habit of looking at the
genitals of animals of certain sexes but not of animals of other sexes.

There is no default value for x4. An omitted x4 must be construed from
context.


This is intended to cover a broad and complex topic, so there are
several possible glosses.

x1 is a gender under system/theory x4.
x2 has a gender.
x2 is gendered/assigned a gender.
x3 assigns/construes/treats x2 as gender x1 in respect/by action x4.
x1 is x2's gender.
x2 performs gender role x1 in respect/by action x4.


Feedback is hereby solicited. In particular, are there things one might
want to say about sex or gender that this place structure could not
easily express?

[Jonathan Jones]

I don't think gender is important enough to need a word, I think that gender is too wide a concept to be only one word, and I hate fu'ivla.

That's the extent of my opinion regarding this.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:52:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

I don't think gender is important enough to need a word, I think that gender is too wide a concept to be only one word, and I hate fu'ivla.

That's the extent of my opinion regarding this.

It might be not relevant for you. It might be relevant for medicine and science. Although lujvo/ bridi might work as well.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[vitci'i]

On 07/12/2012 01:46 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> It might be not relevant for you. It might be relevant for medicine and
> science. Although lujvo/ bridi might work as well.

I'd love to be able to get a lujvo for gender, but I don't see any parts
it could be made out of. The closest I can come is {cinse klesi}, which
inherits all the problems of {cinse} that made me want a new word in the
first place.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:52:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

I don't think gender is important enough to need a word, I think that gender is too wide a concept to be only one word, and I hate fu'ivla.

That's the extent of my opinion regarding this.

It might be not relevant for you. It might be relevant for medicine and science. Although lujvo/ bridi might work as well.

We already have gismu for the meanings of "gender" that are salient for medicine and science.
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/jtriEO9KzNIJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:52:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

I don't think gender is important enough to need a word, I think that gender is too wide a concept to be only one word, and I hate fu'ivla.

That's the extent of my opinion regarding this.

It might be not relevant for you. It might be relevant for medicine and science. Although lujvo/ bridi might work as well.

We already have gismu * for the meanings of "gender" that are salient for medicine and science.

* or lujvo

[.arpis.]

What if we discarded the idea of a word for "gender" and coined a term for something that subsumes the concept. I don't particularly like {ceinse} for being too much like {cinse}, but that's a small detail.

How about:
x1 is the internal subjective identity of x2 according to x3

Thus {tu'a lo nanmu mi ceinse} would be "I'm male-gendered" (I'm putting a tu'a in there because otherwise I feel like I'm saying something more like {da poi nanmu zo'u da mi ceinse}, which doesn't make sense.) and {tu'a lo tinbe mi ceinse} could be used for "I'm a submissive" or {tu'a lo arxokuna mi mi ceinse} for "I self-identify as a raccoon." (e.g. a furry).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Sid]

The problem with that is that "gender" is a real life concept -- it
doesn't cease to exist just because you've made a word that covers a
broader topic. I don't think people would have submissiveness or
furriness built in in the same way that gender is built in into
people, so it's a strange idea for things that wouldn't be counted as
"gender" in most conversation to be treated like other genders.

Not to say that the word is a bad idea, of course, just that it's not
a good replacement for "gender".

mi'e cntr

[.arpis.]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Sid <cntra...@gmail.com> wrote:

The problem with that is that "gender" is a real life concept -- it
doesn't cease to exist just because you've made a word that covers a
broader topic. I don't think people would have submissiveness or
furriness built in in the same way that gender is built in into
people, so it's a strange idea for things that wouldn't be counted as
"gender" in most conversation to be treated like other genders.

Assuming you meant "have" instead of "would have", I disagree; more precisely, I do not believe that there is strong evidence that the difference between "being dominant" and "being female" is not just a difference in the amount/frequency of reinforcement the current societal context provides.
 

Not to say that the word is a bad idea, of course, just that it's not
a good replacement for "gender".

Do you have a definition for "gender" which does not involve (explicit or implicit, e.g. by falling back to "sex") enumeration and so does not preclude genders besides "male" and "female" (which exist in some societies), but which rules out things like "submissive" and "raccoon" as identities? I can't, so I defer to you. Besides, if we use such a general word, we could form a tanru/lujvo between {cinse} and it for the more conventional meaning of "gender".

[Sid]

I usually think of gender in terms of male to female and stuff in
between. You could call "raccoon" and "dominant" genders, but I doubt
that most people see gender in that way. Your word accommodates
unusual selfviews, and is pretty useful for that, but I think that
having a separate word for "gender" in terms of male/female/other
types of views would be handy, since it's a concept widely used.

mi'e cntr

[.arpis.]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Sid <cntra...@gmail.com> wrote:

I usually think of gender in terms of male to female and stuff in
between. You could call "raccoon" and "dominant" genders, but I doubt
that most people see gender in that way. Your word accommodates
unusual selfviews, and is pretty useful for that, but I think that
having a separate word for "gender" in terms of male/female/other
types of views would be handy, since it's a concept widely used.

Of course, and as I mentioned, it would be easy to have a phrase for "sex-linked internal identity" that corresponds to most of what is commonly considered gender without having particular difficulty expressing terms like "both male and female" or "neither male nor female" or "very male and a little female" (the first two of which actually being defined genders in certain societies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender ) if one had a word for a more general and IMO particularly useful concept of "internal identity".
 

[vitci'i]

On 07/12/2012 03:47 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> We already have gismu or lujvo for the meanings of "gender" that are

> salient for medicine and science.

What are they?

On 07/12/2012 06:41 AM, .arpis. wrote:
> What if we discarded the idea of a word for "gender" and coined a
> term for something that subsumes the concept. I don't particularly
> like {ceinse} for being too much like {cinse}, but that's a small
> detail.

{cinse} was close to what I wanted, so I created {ceinse} as a
"corrected version". (I'm assuming that redefining a standard gismu is
not going to happen.)

> How about: x1 is the internal subjective identity of x2 according to
> x3
>
> Thus {tu'a lo nanmu mi ceinse} would be "I'm male-gendered" (I'm
> putting a tu'a in there because otherwise I feel like I'm saying
> something more like {da poi nanmu zo'u da mi ceinse}, which doesn't
> make sense.) and {tu'a lo tinbe mi ceinse} could be used for "I'm a
> submissive" or {tu'a lo arxokuna mi mi ceinse} for "I self-identify
> as a raccoon." (e.g. a furry).

That's actually too *narrow* -- it doesn't allow us to talk about how we
gender inanimate objects and each other. (E.g., <http://is.gd/HXdBMy>,
<http://is.gd/aFzoSg>.)

Also, we already have {sevzi} for that.

{tu'a le ninmu cu sevzi mi} isn't bad for gender identity, though.

On 07/12/2012 08:37 AM, .arpis. wrote:
> Besides, if we use such a general word, we could form a tanru/lujvo
> between {cinse} and it for the more conventional meaning of
> "gender".

This overlooks one of my major gripes with {cinse}, which is that
officially it also includes sexual orientation.

[.arpis.]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:46 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/12/2012 03:47 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> We already have gismu or lujvo for the meanings of "gender" that are

> salient for medicine and science.

What are they?

On 07/12/2012 06:41 AM, .arpis. wrote:
> What if we discarded the idea of a word for "gender" and coined a
> term for something that subsumes the concept. I don't particularly
> like {ceinse} for being too much like {cinse}, but that's a small
> detail.

{cinse} was close to what I wanted, so I created {ceinse} as a
"corrected version". (I'm assuming that redefining a standard gismu is
not going to happen.)

> How about: x1 is the internal subjective identity of x2 according to
> x3
>
> Thus {tu'a lo nanmu mi ceinse} would be "I'm male-gendered" (I'm
> putting a tu'a in there because otherwise I feel like I'm saying
> something more like {da poi nanmu zo'u da mi ceinse}, which doesn't
> make sense.) and {tu'a lo tinbe mi ceinse} could be used for "I'm a
> submissive" or {tu'a lo arxokuna mi mi ceinse} for "I self-identify
> as a raccoon." (e.g. a furry).

That's actually too *narrow* -- it doesn't allow us to talk about how we
gender inanimate objects and each other. (E.g., <http://is.gd/HXdBMy>,
<http://is.gd/aFzoSg>.)

The use of "gender" in that context is different than self-identification; it's targeting based on gender, and that's a tanru/lujvo.

Also, we already have {sevzi} for that.

I was thinking of {sevzi}, but I wasn't sure if that's permissible usage.

{tu'a le ninmu cu sevzi mi} isn't bad for gender identity, though.

On 07/12/2012 08:37 AM, .arpis. wrote:
> Besides, if we use such a general word, we could form a tanru/lujvo
> between {cinse} and it for the more conventional meaning of
> "gender".

This overlooks one of my major gripes with {cinse}, which is that
officially it also includes sexual orientation.

Let's solve one problem at a time, right?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[vitci'i]

>>> How about: x1 is the internal subjective identity of x2 according to
>>> x3
>>>
>>> Thus {tu'a lo nanmu mi ceinse} would be "I'm male-gendered" (I'm
>>> putting a tu'a in there because otherwise I feel like I'm saying
>>> something more like {da poi nanmu zo'u da mi ceinse}, which doesn't
>>> make sense.) and {tu'a lo tinbe mi ceinse} could be used for "I'm a
>>> submissive" or {tu'a lo arxokuna mi mi ceinse} for "I self-identify
>>> as a raccoon." (e.g. a furry).
>>
>> That's actually too *narrow* -- it doesn't allow us to talk about how we
>> gender inanimate objects and each other. (E.g., <http://is.gd/HXdBMy>,
>> <http://is.gd/aFzoSg>.)
>>
>
> The use of "gender" in that context is different than self-identification;
> it's targeting based on gender, and that's a tanru/lujvo.

What would you tanru/lujvo together to convey that? sevzi is
insufficient to distinguish gender identity from other kinds of
self-identification (e.g. nationality/culture); klesi and le'e likewise.
cinse is narrower, but as I've mentioned also means sexual orientation,
and to distinguish which sense is meant we again need a word that means
gender.

(If we had a word for sex, gender could be constructed by lujvo as "sex
stereotype". But we don't.)

(Perhaps gender could be {pibykemxarlei} as "pubic stereotype"?)

[Jonathan Jones]

If you mean sex as in "having this particular sexual chromosome pair", we have a lujvo for that: jbepibnafei
 

(Perhaps gender could be {pibykemxarlei} as "pubic stereotype"?)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--

[vitci'i]

> jbepibnafei<http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/jbepibnafei>

(Technically it's a fu'ivla.)

I dislike long words for important concepts. And jbepibnafei doesn't
specify chromosomes over (say) genitals; it's presumably most useful in
cases where a clean gender binary is assumed, or where edge cases should
be described in full.

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to say {jbepibnafei ke kulnu xarlei ke'e
sevzi} every time I want to talk about gender identity. If I had the
power to rewrite cinse, gender identity would be {cinse'i}.

[Jonathan Jones]

No, it's a lujvo. It's made by combining the rafsi of various gismu and cmavo together. A fu'ivla is a foreign word.

I dislike long words for important concepts. And jbepibnafei doesn't
specify chromosomes over (say) genitals; it's presumably most useful in
cases where a clean gender binary is assumed, or where edge cases should
be described in full.

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to say {jbepibnafei ke kulnu xarlei ke'e
sevzi} every time I want to talk about gender identity. If I had the
power to rewrite cinse, gender identity would be {cinse'i}.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

nvm. I was wrong.

I dislike long words for important concepts. And jbepibnafei doesn't
specify chromosomes over (say) genitals; it's presumably most useful in
cases where a clean gender binary is assumed, or where edge cases should
be described in full.

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to say {jbepibnafei ke kulnu xarlei ke'e
sevzi} every time I want to talk about gender identity. If I had the
power to rewrite cinse, gender identity would be {cinse'i}.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

I disagree that what you're talking about is important. And there is nothing about the word that is binary, implicitly or explicitly.

As far as talking about the gene sequences specific to a person's genital development, that would be a completely different word.
 

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to say {jbepibnafei ke kulnu xarlei ke'e
sevzi} every time I want to talk about gender identity. If I had the
power to rewrite cinse, gender identity would be {cinse'i}.

Good, because you'd be wrong to do so. Gender identity != genetic sex.

[Jacob Errington]

It's definitely not a lujvo; I made the word with latro'a. I should
know to which class it belongs.
I hope that anyone who's looked at this word has also looked at the
notes, which should have led the reader to read the lojban definition
as well, because the lojban definition is much clearer as to what
exactly should go in each place. {jbepibnafei} is a zi'evla based of
the rafsi for jbena, plibu, nakni, and fetsi and is intended to be
used to talk about *biological sex* as in "the apparent genitalia
(hence plibu) at time of birth (hence jbena)".

FWIW, latro'a and I couldn't/didn't create any word for gender in the
societal sense.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

Yes, I corrected myself. And I know it's specifically biological gender.

[Jonathan Jones]

Honestly, I think {jbeplibu to se smuni lodu'u ko'a jbena fi'o plibu ko'e toi} would've been enough. Also, including nakni and fetsi at least implicitly restricts it to (some combination of) two genders- that is, that while a person can be, for example, XX, XY, X, XXY, XYY, etc., they can't be XT, to make up a gender gene.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

(Maybe {ko'a jbena zi'o zi'o zi'o fi'o plibu ko'e})

[vitci'i]

>>>>> The use of "gender" in that context is different than
>>>> self-identification;
>>>>> it's targeting based on gender, and that's a tanru/lujvo.
>>>>
>>>> What would you tanru/lujvo together to convey that? sevzi is
>>>> insufficient to distinguish gender identity from other kinds of
>>>> self-identification (e.g. nationality/culture); klesi and le'e likewise.
>>>> cinse is narrower, but as I've mentioned also means sexual orientation,
>>>> and to distinguish which sense is meant we again need a word that means
>>>> gender.
>>>>
>>>> (If we had a word for sex, gender could be constructed by lujvo as "sex
>>>> stereotype". But we don't.)
>>>>

>> Anyway, I'm certainly not going to say {jbepibnafei ke kulnu xarlei ke'e
>> sevzi} every time I want to talk about gender identity. If I had the
>> power to rewrite cinse, gender identity would be {cinse'i}.
>>
>
> Good, because you'd be wrong to do so. Gender identity != genetic sex.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? The problem I'm trying to solve
is that there aren't words that are capable of specifying the concept
"gender". Since sex was one of the nearest misses, I constructed a
phrase including it.

> (Maybe {ko'a jbena zi'o zi'o zi'o fi'o plibu ko'e})

I don't think {zi'o} is what you want here: you've said that ko'a is
born never, nowhere, and to no one, but nevertheless is born.

[Jacob Errington]

Watch out with {zi'o}. {zi'o} is *not* "nothing" or any variation of
it. {zi'o} *deletes* the place.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> The use of "gender" in that context is different than
>>>> self-identification;
>>>>> it's targeting based on gender, and that's a tanru/lujvo.
>>>>
>>>> What would you tanru/lujvo together to convey that? sevzi is
>>>> insufficient to distinguish gender identity from other kinds of
>>>> self-identification (e.g. nationality/culture); klesi and le'e likewise.
>>>> cinse is narrower, but as I've mentioned also means sexual orientation,
>>>> and to distinguish which sense is meant we again need a word that means
>>>> gender.
>>>>
>>>> (If we had a word for sex, gender could be constructed by lujvo as "sex
>>>> stereotype". But we don't.)
>>>>

>> Anyway, I'm certainly not going to say {jbepibnafei ke kulnu xarlei ke'e
>> sevzi} every time I want to talk about gender identity. If I had the
>> power to rewrite cinse, gender identity would be {cinse'i}.
>>
>
> Good, because you'd be wrong to do so. Gender identity != genetic sex.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? The problem I'm trying to solve
is that there aren't words that are capable of specifying the concept
"gender". Since sex was one of the nearest misses, I constructed a
phrase including it.

I'm saying that the English word "gender" is too broad to be one Lojban word, and that the only portion of it that is important is biological. Societal gender is not, to me, important at all. It doesn't matter to me what gender- in any sense of the word- a person is, except in the biological sense, and even then, only for reasons of biological/medicinal purposes. (Like if I want to have kids, or I need to treat a relevant illness.)
 

> (Maybe {ko'a jbena zi'o zi'o zi'o fi'o plibu ko'e})

I don't think {zi'o} is what you want here: you've said that ko'a is
born never, nowhere, and to no one, but nevertheless is born.

No, that would be noda, not zi'o. zi'o removes that place from the relationship, it doesn't fill it with "does not exist".

[vitci'i]

On 07/12/2012 11:46 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I'm saying that the English word "gender" is too broad to be one Lojban
> word, and that the only portion of it that is important is biological.
> Societal gender is not, to me, important at all. It doesn't matter to me
> what gender- in any sense of the word- a person is, except in the
> biological sense, and even then, only for reasons of biological/medicinal
> purposes. (Like if I want to have kids, or I need to treat a relevant
> illness.)

Even if you personally don't care about societal gender, it's still a
thing that a lot of people care about and are affected by. You don't get
to delete words from the dictionary just because they aren't to your taste.

[Jonathan Jones]

Firstly, it's not a matter of deletion. They don't exist.

Secondly, it's not a matter of taste. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. It's a matter of importance. Societal gender is nothing more than a means of classifying- and thus segregating- people who don't fit some "norm".

Thirdly, I have yet to see a definition of "Societal Gender" that isn't so horrendously broad as to be essentially meaningless, which may in fact be part of the reason why it's so difficult for you to find a Lojban word.

How about, instead of arguing about the importance or lack thereof of such a word, you divide the uber-concept into it's constituent pieces.

[vitci'i]

I believe I did: gender is a strongly sex-correlated stereotype.

[Jonathan Jones]

I think you want to come up with a different definition. Stereotypes are most definitely not deserving of words.

[John E Clifford]

Just back from the General convention of the Episcopal Church, so I have heard "gender" up to here.  From all of that, I gather that it might be more useful to search for a number of particular terms, rather than a general one like "gender".  Leaving aside sex (at least two definitions, one genetic with about a half dozen slots, one plumbing with an at least two dimensional field with countless cluster points) and sexual orientation (presented as a linear array with about a half dozen cluster points, but also implicitly two such arrays, differing loosely by sex), there remain gender roles (differing from one micro society to another and covering areas from personal hygiene to crafts and beyond) gender roling (conforming to some roles -- a matter of degree as well which areas), gender identity (what you say you are -- there seem to be at least five easy categories here), gender expression (what you look to be to others -- it's not clear whether this includes pseudos or that is just a byproduct of ineptness -- at least as many categories as identity) and gender status (what you can get the government, etc., to say you are).  I'm sure I missed some, but this is enough to start, not merely looking for terms to match these but also specify at least some of the cluster points in the various maps (some of these clusters are rather small but often the more interesting for al that).

---

[Jonathan Jones]

Thank you, John. That was exactly what I was getting at when I said that "gender" is too broad.

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just back from the General convention of the Episcopal Church, so I have heard "gender" up to here.  From all of that, I gather that it might be more useful to search for a number of particular terms, rather than a general one like "gender".  Leaving aside sex (at least two definitions, one genetic with about a half dozen slots, one plumbing with an at least two dimensional field with countless cluster points) and sexual orientation (presented as a linear array with about a half dozen cluster points, but also implicitly two such arrays, differing loosely by sex), there remain gender roles (differing from one micro society to another and covering areas from personal hygiene to crafts and beyond) gender roling (conforming to some roles -- a matter of degree as well which areas), gender identity (what you say you are -- there seem to be at least five easy categories here), gender expression (what you look to be to others -- it's not clear whether this includes pseudos or that is just a byproduct of ineptness -- at least as many categories as identity) and gender status (what you can get the government, etc., to say you are).  I'm sure I missed some, but this is enough to start, not merely looking for terms to match these but also specify at least some of the cluster points in the various maps (some of these clusters are rather small but often the more interesting for al that).

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[vitci'i]

On 07/13/2012 10:49 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I think you want to come up with a different definition. Stereotypes are
> most definitely not deserving of words.

But we can have gismu (with short rafsi!) for specific cultures? Just
because something's essentially imaginary doesn't mean we get to ignore it.

On 07/13/2012 01:16 PM, John E Clifford wrote:
> Just back from the General convention of the Episcopal Church, so I
> have heard "gender" up to here. From all of that, I gather that it
> might be more useful to search for a number of particular terms,
> rather than a general one like "gender". Leaving aside sex (at least
> two definitions, one genetic with about a half dozen slots, one
> plumbing with an at least two dimensional field with countless
> cluster points) and sexual orientation (presented as a linear array
> with about a half dozen cluster points, but also implicitly two such
> arrays, differing loosely by sex), there remain gender roles
> (differing from one micro society to another and covering areas from
> personal hygiene to crafts and beyond) gender roling (conforming to
> some roles -- a matter of degree as well which areas), gender
> identity (what you say you are -- there seem to be at least five easy
> categories here), gender expression (what you look to be to others --
> it's not clear whether this includes pseudos or that is just a
> byproduct of ineptness -- at least as many categories as identity)
> and gender status (what you can get the government, etc., to say you
> are). I'm sure I missed some, but this is enough to start, not
> merely looking for terms to match these but also specify at least
> some of the cluster points in the various maps (some of these
> clusters are rather small but often the more interesting for al
> that).

It is precisely because this is so complicated that we must not try to
create separate gismu for everything. The right solution is to create a
small set of broad but orthogonal words that can be used as components
in lujvo.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/13/2012 10:49 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I think you want to come up with a different definition. Stereotypes are
> most definitely not deserving of words.

But we can have gismu (with short rafsi!) for specific cultures? Just
because something's essentially imaginary doesn't mean we get to ignore it.

Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.

Here's some stereotypes:

All Mexicans are thieves.

Women are weaker than men.

Blondes are stupid.

Irish people are alcoholics.

I could go on, but I think this shows my point well enough.
 

Except that's not the way we do things. The meaning of the English "gender" is so broad it covers /completely unrelated/ concepts.

There is nothing wrong with having a word in Lojban that covers a wide berth- that's what the intention of the gismu is, after all.

But we do /not/ have words that cover multiple concepts. That defeats the purpose of the language.

[vitci'i]

On 07/13/2012 04:57 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.

What's the difference between something that's imaginary and something
that's not true?

> Except that's not the way we do things. The meaning of the English "gender"
> is so broad it covers /completely unrelated/ concepts.
>
> There is nothing wrong with having a word in Lojban that covers a wide
> berth- that's what the intention of the gismu is, after all.
>
> But we do /not/ have words that cover multiple concepts. That defeats the
> purpose of the language.

What set of words do you suggest?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/13/2012 04:57 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.

What's the difference between something that's imaginary and something
that's not true?

I will not be dragged into a philosophical debate.
 

> Except that's not the way we do things. The meaning of the English "gender"
> is so broad it covers /completely unrelated/ concepts.
>
> There is nothing wrong with having a word in Lojban that covers a wide
> berth- that's what the intention of the gismu is, after all.
>
> But we do /not/ have words that cover multiple concepts. That defeats the
> purpose of the language.

What set of words do you suggest?

As I've said previously, I don't consider any of the concepts important to /need/ a word, but I would suggest those of you that do to use the list John Clifford posted.

[MorphemeAddict]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/13/2012 04:57 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.

What's the difference between something that's imaginary and something
that's not true?

Many kinds of things can be not true without being imaginary: opinions, sentences, stereotypes, 

stevo 

> Except that's not the way we do things. The meaning of the English "gender"
> is so broad it covers /completely unrelated/ concepts.
>
> There is nothing wrong with having a word in Lojban that covers a wide
> berth- that's what the intention of the gismu is, after all.
>
> But we do /not/ have words that cover multiple concepts. That defeats the
> purpose of the language.

What set of words do you suggest?

[vitci'i]

On 07/13/2012 09:00 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 PM, vitci'i
> <celestial...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On 07/13/2012 04:57 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>>> Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and
>>> WRONG.
>>
>> What's the difference between something that's imaginary and
>> something that's not true?
>
> I will not be dragged into a philosophical debate.

I wasn't trying to be philosophical. Let me try again: would you please
clarify the nature of your objection to the construction "imaginary
category" to mean stereotype? It seems to me a fairly accurate description.

>>> Except that's not the way we do things. The meaning of the
>>> English
>> "gender"
>>> is so broad it covers /completely unrelated/ concepts.
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with having a word in Lojban that covers a
>>> wide berth- that's what the intention of the gismu is, after
>>> all.
>>>
>>> But we do /not/ have words that cover multiple concepts. That
>>> defeats the purpose of the language.
>>
>> What set of words do you suggest?
>
> As I've said previously, I don't consider any of the concepts
> important to /need/ a word, but I would suggest those of you that do
> to use the list John Clifford posted.

I think it's a bad idea to try to exhaustively list all the different
angles on this, because our idea of what the list contents should be is
likely to change. It would be better to have a single broad word that
captures what they have in common, and then tanru/lujvo down from there.


On 07/14/2012 12:23 AM, MorphemeAddict wrote:> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at
8:03 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Many kinds of things can be not true without being imaginary:
> opinions, sentences, stereotypes,

Opinions and sentences are generally na'e jetnu, neither true nor false
(though sentences often express propositions that are true or false).
Stereotypes, on the other hand, are generally to'e jetnu, factually
incorrect.

[John E Clifford]

Okay, to be philosophical, stereotypes are not necessarily derogatory and they are not categories.  They are correlations between categories: Xs are Y.  They are not even all false, for that matter, though the contrary cases are accidental.  "Imaginary category" is pleasantly ambiguous; I suppose you mean a category that doesn't actually categorize anything, but that is hard to do, unless you slide over to a category of imaginary things.  What you want is a failed correlation.

On the more general question of what the Hell gender is, while a final answer eludes me, the basic material to be dealt with are plumbing sex (and maybe sexual orientation thrown in) and societal expectations correlated with that.  How these all play out in different areas (not to mention different societies) is the problem.  I think that dealing with this interplay in more particular cases is going to be easier, especially given the inevitability of engineering solutions to word construction.  Artistic solutions might clear the ground a bit, but we just aren't artistic.

---

From: vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Gender, yet again.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Turniansky]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/13/2012 10:49 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I think you want to come up with a different definition. Stereotypes are
> most definitely not deserving of words.

But we can have gismu (with short rafsi!) for specific cultures? Just
because something's essentially imaginary doesn't mean we get to ignore it.

Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.

Here's some stereotypes:

All Mexicans are thieves.

Women are weaker than men.

Blondes are stupid.

Irish people are alcoholics.

I could go on, but I think this shows my point well enough.
 

le'e  jbopre poi du'eroi pensi lo cinse valsi cu frili sefanza  vau zo'o

                     --gejyspa